A few years back I received a call about surveying a disputed line along the right descending bank of the Red River. I had done a boundary survey along the same said bank a couple of miles south of this property and found some ineteresting problems (another post for another day).
Anyways, my client owned a fractional part of a section that included a meander line. The original survey included said meander. Around 40 years after the original survey, the GLO sent another survey crew out to survey the accreted lands. Everything was flooded according to the notes and the new surveyor had trouble finding original monumentation.
The new guy went north after securing boats and found what he believed to be an original witness tree. He then proceeded south and ran the meander line as recorded. It turns out that he was 200' north of the original line and even shows a huge break at the northeast corner.
Fast forward 100 years and now we have two section lines on the north end. The problem is that they both fit GLO depending on which version is used. My client didn't understand that both versions could be correct or that I wasn't able to give him a definitive answer as to which was correct. Occupation fits the line 200' north & would probably hold up through acquiesence/adverse possession, but the 2nd surveyor in wasn't commissioned to set that particular corner.
What say you guys?
Webbed feet, post: 413923, member: 10038 wrote: A few years back I received a call about surveying a disputed line along the right descending bank of the Red River. I had done a boundary survey along the same said bank a couple of miles south of this property and found some ineteresting problems (another post for another day).
Anyways, my client owned a fractional part of a section that included a meander line. The original survey included said meander. Around 40 years after the original survey, the GLO sent another survey crew out to survey the accreted lands. Everything was flooded according to the notes and the new surveyor had trouble finding original monumentation.
The new guy went north after securing boats and found what he believed to be an original witness tree. He then proceeded south and ran the meander line as recorded. It turns out that he was 200' north of the original line and even shows a huge break at the northeast corner.
Fast forward 100 years and now we have two section lines on the north end. The problem is that they both fit GLO depending on which version is used. My client didn't understand that both versions could be correct or that I wasn't able to give him a definitive answer as to which was correct. Occupation fits the line 200' north & would probably hold up through acquiesence/adverse possession, but the 2nd surveyor in wasn't commissioned to set that particular corner.
What say you guys?
Were lands patented between the time of the surveys?
MightyMoe, post: 413925, member: 700 wrote: Were lands patented between the time of the surveys?
It was all common ownership at the time of the resurvey. The retracement re-established the northwest corner so they could determine the "original meander" and the new accretions.
Webbed feet, post: 413927, member: 10038 wrote: It was all common ownership at the time of the resurvey. The retracement re-established the northwest corner so they could determine the "original meander" and the new accretions.
Theres a lot to these questions, but i can say that I'm in a similar situation; the BLM'S view is because the second survey produced a plat and all lands were transfered after that plat then the second survey holds
I can definitely see both sides. I'll try & post some field notes tomorrow Moe. Very interesting reading. Thanks for the reply.
Try this link.
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/fieldnote/default.aspx?dm_id=241277&s_dm_id=5882&sid=dwj4myws.ktb
I can't tell from the first post, did you find monuments that are undisputed for both surveys?
That is what you will need.
This would start at the BLM if they still have any interest in the area. If they do then it needs to go to the IBLA, since you have no standing, the client would need to be the one to take it there.
About all you can do is show what you have recovered and explain the issue.
These are lands that have been sitting for over 100 years in repose based on official US Gov. surveys, it would be difficult to change that.
I was lucky when I got embroiled in the issue, there is a state law that prescribed that the newest official survey holds.
BLM could hold mineral rights too.
You say the land was in common ownership, but what matters is when the land was patented. If it was between surveys the original line would hold. If I was after and the resurvey was an independent resurvey the resurvey would hold. If it was after and it was a dependent resurvey you have a harder question to answer.
Unless there is adjoining federal interst land and BLM is disagreeing with you IBLA has nothing to do with this.
You said all the lands were owned in common, and there are also river entanglements, is the river under government ownership---state/federal? Does this survey affect them at all?
MightyMoe, post: 414109, member: 700 wrote: You said all the lands were owned in common, and there are also river entanglements, is the river under government ownership---state/federal? Does this survey affect them at all?
The river really has no affect on the line in question. Have you had a chance to read the notes yet? Very interesting read, the guy had a very hard time.
Webbed feet, post: 414117, member: 10038 wrote: The river really has no affect on the line in question. Have you had a chance to read the notes yet? Very interesting read, the guy had a very hard time.
There was a lot of info in the link, is it the 14-25 twn?
I've just had a chance to look at the plats and glance at the notes. What lot or aliquot part is your client's land in? It looks like the 1899 surveyor found some problems with the rectangularity and meanders of the 1823 survey.
The 1899 survey is not a resurvey. It is an original that retraced portions of the earlier survey and subdividrd omitted or acreated land. The original section 30 was patented prior to this survey. It looks like the 1823 section 30 may have completely eroded away by 1899, or else it was erroneously placed to begin with.
When the 1899 surveyor realised how badly the evidence he found fit record he had to pick a method that would allow for maximum rectangularity of his new survey. He choose to extend the range line through the original meander corner position ( which he claims was erroneous) to create an 80 chain cardnial section line. This causes the north section line to not be aligned with the original south section line of section 20. Absent any action of state law in the 118 years since this survey, the section line as shown on the supplemental plat will control the numbered lots in sections 19 and 30, and the e1/2nw1/4 section 30. The 1823 meander line as resurveyed in 1899 controls all unlotted portions of section 19. All land in sections 20,29 and the remainder of 30 (if it exists) is controlled by the 1823 section lines.
An interesting question is what has become of the "brushy accretion" ?